CTD, If my non-efforts are not as bothersome as a horsefly, why comment? Could it be because you are a classic xian narcissist masquerading as a Chosen One who needs to point out when its being persecuted? Lmfao...Your kind crack me up here every day...keep it coming!!

he says as he pokes out his tongue...Trolls post things that are not true to elicit a desired emotional response. I don't do that. Well, not all the time, lol...Things like CTD Robots deserve no serious consideration. They don't have real emotions because their beliefs are not based on reality. All fake. Therefore you can't blame me for trying to get something authentic out of it/him. What else is there to do with that kind? You can seriously waste your efforts on it if you like and let's see how much satisfaction you get from it...can't wait to read your serious contribution, tuk!! Oh, wait, you're agnostic. Nothing to say...

tuk22 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. I've been participating here at SS for over
> 12 years now and we have had many serious
> discussions. Tone is everything. I know you are
> looking for a fight, not a discussion...

You just have to want one! Sensitive topics demand sensitivity. A serious tone demands a serious response. There is only one poster here that will not correspond with you willingly and that is Sam. She is a troll.

About a month ago, we were discussing the role of faith in science. We all pretty much agreed on the necessary assumptions, (what we assume for the sake of intelligibility) but I made the point that there has to be some level of faith involved in trusting what the actual scientists were telling us is true... One of the responses was the 'peer review system'.

It seems like we need a review system for the review system, as the study shows... And just because it was done years ago doesn't imply it is not happening today.

tuk said "There is only one poster here that will not correspond with you willingly and that is Sam".

That's true. I don't correspond with Robots. If that's how you define a troll, then fine, that's true, too. I guess this Robot is a troll, too, then. Maybe you, as well, tuk, since you apparently are only here to bait me. I see no other contribution. In fact, I see no one here taking this Robot too seriously. A forum full of trolls. Brilliant.

Science is the most advanced form of thought humanity has. Science is committed to honesty even though some individuals who practice it fall prey to the urge to cheat.

Religion, however, especially the religion that is waging a war on the credibility of science, is filled with the worst kind of mendacity. Just tune in to TV early Sunday morning to see a zoo full screeching, gyrating charlatans promising you "harvest" if you "sow" your money with them, or predicting the end of the world, or "healing" people with a slap to the head. These snake oil salesmen would never be tolerated in science.

Whatever faith we must have that what scientists are saying is true is nothing compared to the self-righteous full-on "knowledge" of magical beings that this Godbot espouses. Lies for thumbsuckers. How about the peer reviews of religious weirdos making claims about reality? Yeah, no such thing. That should tell us something. When Godbots get turned on, look out for the bot minions to thump their bibles in a cadence of amens. Crazy fukkers deserve no serious consideration of their ravings. Pay attention to it and you feed it. Pfft. Let it go.

It's not much secret what one of the top priorities, if not the very top priority has long been within the System.

QuoteWitness the brazen censorship earlier this year of an article by University of Texas, El Paso mathematics professor Granville Sewell, author of the book In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design. Sewell's article critical of Neo-Darwinism ("A Second Look at the Second Law&quot was both peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by the journal Applied Mathematics Letters. That is, the article was accepted for publication until a Darwinist blogger who describes himself as an "opinionated computer science geek" wrote the journal editor to denounce the article, and the editor decided to pull Sewell's article in violation of his journal's own professional standards.

...

Lepiscopo points out that in retracting Sewell's article, Applied Mathematics Letters "effectively accepted the unsubstantiated word and unsupported opinion of an inconsequential blogger, with little or unknown academic background beyond a self-professed public acknowledgment that he was a 'computer science grad' and whose only known writings are self-posted blogs about movies, comics, and fantasy computer games." This blogger's unsupported opinion "trumped the views of an author who is a well respected mathematician with a Ph.D. in Mathematics from Purdue University; a fully-tenured Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas--El Paso; an author of three books on numerical analysis and 40 articles published in respected journals; and a highly sought-after and frequent lecturer world-wide on mathematics and science."

Nutball Intelligent Design advocates are telling their followers that there is this secret conspiracy to silence Christian Believers within scientific circles. But science has no controlling authority-- only the authority of thousands of independent thinkers who won't hesitate to call bullshit on phony research.

Religionoids figure if they could just overthrow science, they could control the minds of everyone on earth. Sick.

QuoteIn a survey of members of the Scientific Research Society, "only 8% agreed that 'peer review works well as it is'." (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192).

...

Empirical studies have shown that assessments made by independent reviewers of papers submitted to journals and abstracts submitted to conferences are no reproducible, i.e. agreement between reviewers is about what is expected by chance alone. Rothwell and Martyn (2000), for example, analyzed the statistical correlations among reviewers' recommendations (made to two journals and two conferences) by analysis of variance and found out that for one journal "was not significantly greater than that expected by chance" and, in general, agreement between reviewers "was little greater than would be expected by chance alone."

Goodness me, goodness me, would you look at that? 8%

I'd say the people who know and the people who hype the "Peer Review System" nonstop are distinct and separate groups, wouldn't you? Oh, there surely IS an alternative: those hyping it actually do know the truth.

QuoteUK politicians puzzle over peer review in an open access environment

The UK House of Commons Science & Technology Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into peer review. The third public event of the inquiry was held on Monday 23rd May, when the Committee heard evidence from experts on open access publishing and post-publication review, and from representatives of the research community.

Now that politicians are getting involved, surely a solution is just around the corner. They're the "experts" on what everyone else should do, don't forget.